Atm No Go Zones Policy Paper

Establishing a

No Go Zone Policy

in the Philippines:

Issues, Concerns and Guideposts

2012
Alyansa Tigil Mina

Alyansa Tigil Mina
ATM
National
Secretariat

Emails:

nc@alyansatigilmina.net policy@alyansatigilmina.net

sos@alyansatigilmina.net communications@alyansatigilmina.net

Twitter: Website: Facebook:

atm_philippines www.alyansatigilmina.net Alyansa Tigil Mina

Photos by Farah Sevilla

All rights reserved

Forest cover in Tampakan, South Cotabato

Table
of
contents

Alyansa Tigil Mina
1

Lake Mainit, Jabonga, Agusan del Norte

I.
Executive
Summary

Revisiting the crafting of a No-Go-Zone policy for the extraction of mineral and
other natural resources in the Philippines occurs at a crucial juncture of the national
economy, environmental history and political climate in the Philippines. The
Philippines has reached an unprecedented boom in its population and an uncurbed
rate of increase in poverty, while having finite natural resources at its disposal. It
needs to find a clear driver of development and a plan to decisively address poverty.
Mining has been identified by both the past Arroyo government and the current
administration of President Aquino as an industry to be supported by the
government to bring in much needed economic activity. However, by the very nature
of its operation as practiced in the Philippines and in other developing countries,
mining will affect the state of fragile ecosystems, the quality of water resources, the
availability of food resources especially for subsistence level communities highly
dependent on forest and marine resources, and contributes to further displacement
and resource conflicts.
In embarking on mining as an economic program, the Philippine government needs
to consider the potential irreversibility of mining’s effects on fragile ecosystems and
in worsening the magnitude of hunger in the countrysides as mining will compete
in available land, water and food resources. It also needs to seriously reflect on
the potential aggravating effect mining operations may have in creating resource
conflicts and in worsening existing armed conflicts.
It is axiomatic to point out that mining is not possible in all 30 million hectares of
the Philippine archipelago for the simple reason that human settlements for more
than 87 Million Filipinos and other economic activities must exist alongside mining.

2

Establishing a No Go Zone Policy in the Philippines: Issues, Concerns and Guideposts

The following think paper seeks to present 4 major areas for consideration in
deciding whether an area may be considered a No-Go Zone or a Go-Zone. These
would be the
1) Fragile and Non Fragile Ecosystems: Irreversibility of the effects on fragile
ecosystems; some conservation units (eg national parks, Biosphere Reserves,
World Heritage Sites, etc)
2) Food Security: Increasing the threat to life through depletion of water and food
resources in areas of marginable resources;
3) Disaster Risk: Increasing the magnitude and exposure of poor communities to
disaster risk; and
4) Intensified Conflict: Increasing the exposure of communities and employees to
the risks of armed conflicts and increases the number unresolved rights abuse
that worsens the situation of impunity

II.
Introduction
/
Background

The demand to establish a No-Go-Zone policy in the extraction of natural resources
within the Philippine archipelago has long been put forward by various development
actors in the interest of rationalizing the use of the last remaining resources of the
nation’s patrimony, and finding the link between development and the exhaustion
(or non-exhaustion) of the nation’s resources. Revisiting the crafting of a No-Go-
Zone policy now occurs at a point where the pressure to open up more resources for
exploitation is extremely high.

The population of the country will soon breach the 95 million mark, with more than
one-fourth (26.5 %) of the population classified as living below poverty thresholds,
and where around nine and a half million (9.4 M) people suffer from possibly the
worst forms of hunger as they depend on subsistence level production for their food.
And yet the available land and resources for habitation and production remains
finite at 30 million hectares. Majority of the food poor may be found in the rural
areas, remaining dependent upon the available forest and agricultural resources in
ancestral domains or public forests.

The competition for land and resources is compounded by climate change factors
which either increase the physical risk of certain areas or increase the risks to
agricultural or food production. The ravaging effects of extreme climatic events and
other natural disasters has affected many parts of the country with frequency and
magnitude that makes government and poor communities find it extremely difficult
to cope. This highlights the high vulnerability of the country to natural disasters and
its contributory effect to continued poverty. The Philippines joins many countries
across the globe calling for a decisive resolution to global climate change.

Alyansa Tigil Mina
3

The dwindling resources and high poverty incidence has likewise spurred and
allowed resource-based conflict to continue and even worsen. The utilisation and
exploitation of natural resources results in the displacement of many poor rural
and indigenous communities. This has resulted in a stream of rights abuses which
remain unaddressed and without proper reparation. Resource conflicts feeds into
the decades-long armed conflict between the Philippine government, Moro rebels
and the Communist insurgents.

The previous administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo identified the
exploration, utilisation and development of mineral resources as a key program of
the administration to spur economic development. It remains to be a key component
of the current administration of President Benigno C. Aquino III. It is identified as
one of the key industries to be supported by the Philippine Development Plan for
2011 to 2016.

The identification of mining as a driver for development is hinged upon the
projected potential of the rich mineral resources of the country. It is one of the
important gold producers worldwide, and ranked 29th gold producer in 2002. In
1988, it was second to Africa in terms of gold production per unit of land1. It is
highly mineralised and ranks third in the world in terms of gold resources, fourth in
terms of copper resources, and fifth in nickel2. Based on the Mines and Geosciences
Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (MGB), the
country ranks in the top 5 for copper, nickel and iron ore.

The actual contribution of mining to the Philippine economy remains minimal.
Even with the investment incentives provided to mining, its contribution to GDP is
at less than 2%.

III.
Themes/
Context
(Rational)
for
a
“No-Go-Zones”
policy

a.
Fragile
Ecosystems

The Philippines has been identified as one of only 17 megadiverse countries3,
which combined contain 70-80% of the world’s plant and animal diversity4. It is
regarded as the third most bio diverse country within South and Southeast Asia5.
Its mountainous geography of tropical forests hosts a high diversity of species, and
high number of endemic species6 of plants, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians,
freshwater fishes and invertebrates. Globally, it is ranked 5th in terms of the number
of plant species, and hosts 5% of the total of the world’s plants7. It is ranked 4th in
terms of bird endemism, and hosts more than 3,000 species of fishes where 121 are
endemic and 76 are threatened species8.

4


These rich biodiversity sites are housed mostly in the remaining forests in the
uplands (those having equal to or greater than 18 percent slope)9. Notably, these
forests are rapidly decreasing and degrading at an alarming speed. As late as 1945,
the Philippines was said to still have a total forest cover of around 66%10, or 16
Million of the 30 Million hectares of land of the Philippines still had thick forest
cover. The snapshots11 of the forest cover from the 1900s to the end of the century
shows the rapid disappearance of the forest cover from the 1960’s to the 1980’s.

Based on the latest available satellite maps of the Philippines Forest Cover done
in 2002, the conservative estimate of the remaining forest cover is placed at 21.7%
by the Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC), while the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources – Forest Management Bureau (DENR-FMB)
places the figure at 24.4%. Although using similar satellite imagery, the difference
between the figures accounts for tree plantations and mangroves which the DENR-
FMB includes in their figures, and which the ESSC purposively excludes. According
to the ESSC, in the last 20 years, forest cover essentially has not changed but there
has been a qualitative change in the forests12.

It is important to note this fact as it would not be sufficient to merely quantify the
forest cover as it is seen in the satellite maps, but the quality of the forests need to be
understood. By the changing of the quality of forests – which includes the types of
trees grown and how these are managed and cared for – their capability to continue
to serve as the natural habitat of the rich biodiversity also diminishes, and their
capacity to be able to support human settlements also changes.

The entire archipelago is composed of 30 million hectares of land, where 47% is
classified as non-forestland or alienable and disposable land. Not all of the classified
alienable and disposable land have been titled, and majority are located within the
rural areas. Agriculture is the main livelihood of majority of the population, and
yet there is a high concentration of land resources in the hands of less than 20% of
the national population. Since the 1970’s, efforts have been made to redistribute
land as the cornerstone of agrarian reform policy in an effort to address poverty
in the country sides13. The most recent agrarian reform policy was that of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) implemented after the fall of the
Marcos dictatorship in the late 1980s. Before the implementation of the CARL, less
than 2% of the landholders had farms exceeding 34 hectares, and they controlled
36% of all farmlands14 . It was apparent that the concentration of land in the hands of
a few was still present as late as the two decades ago. Apart from this, the productivity
of the arable agricultural land is severely affected by over use and siltation.

The Philippines has rich water resources15 that include inland freshwater (rivers,
lakes, groundwater) and marine (bays, coastal waters, and seas) within the island and
along the coasts of the archipelago16.

Alyansa Tigil Mina
5

Forest Cover of the Philippines 1900s to 1999

1900

Source: Conservation International

6


1999

Source: Conservation International

Alyansa Tigil Mina
7

The Philippines sits inside the coral triangle, a mega-biodiversity triangle which it
shares with neighbouring Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Solomon
Islands and is considered as the global epicentre of marine biodiversity17. The Coral
Triangle is home to 76% of the world’s species of corals, 6 of the 7 known species
of marine turtles, and more than 2,000 species of reef fishes. Around 120 Million
people from the 6 countries live on the resources of this triangle. In the Philippines
alone, 62% of the population lives in coastal zones and are touted to be directly
dependent on the existing coral reefs for their livelihood. It has the second highest
seagrass diversity in the world, the first being Australia. The rich mangrove forests
were severely depleted to roughly 26% of its figures in 1918 due to the proliferation
of fishponds. It is now steadily regenerating. It has 5 species of Marine turtles, 1755
reef-associated fish species,168 species or 10% of cartilaginous fishes in the world,
820 species of algae, 648 species of molluscs, 1062 of seaweeds including sea algae,
and 25 species of marine mammals18.

According to the DENR, the 422 river basins in the country are supported by around
322 watersheds which are also forest areas, covering around 10,633,402 hectares.
The National Irrigation Authority (NIA) has identified 140 critical watersheds that
support the irrigation of agricultural land vital for food production. 92 of the 322
characterised watersheds are located within the critical areas identified by the NIA.
Of the 322 characterised watersheds, only 128 are considered as Watershed Forest
Reserves covering 1,517,087.60 hectares19.

While government statistics would conclude that the slash and burn (kaingin) system
and collection of firewood remains to be the main source of forest degradation,
anecdotal evidence from community organizations (COs) and non-government
organisations (NGOs) would show that Mining is the most significant threat to the
remaining forest ecosystems and access of the poor to natural resources.

The aggressive promotion of mining under the government’s Mining Revitalization
Program has fast tracked the approval of mineral exploration to the point that it is
possible for a mining company to start exploration within a year, while protected
landscapes would need to suffer the slow grind of law making before a proclamation
may be handed out to declare the biodiversity area as protected.

b.
Food
Security

The presence of such biodiversity and natural resources has implications on the
role that mega diverse countries such as the Philippines will play in the global
fight against hunger and poverty. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
underscores the inextricable link between biodiversity and human survival20. Such
variety and variability of ecosystems, fauna and flora form a key component of the
ecosystem, and its ecological services are necessary in order to sustain human life.

8


Such biodiversity is necessary in order to support the production of food and address
the needs of increasing global hunger and malnutrition.
The high level of biodiversity and rich natural resources in the Philippines,
unfortunately, does not translate into the improvement of human living conditions
in the country. In the Philippines, the high level of biodiversity, the vastness and
richness of the natural resources found within, is in direct proportion to the high
level of poverty. This is especially true in the areas where we find the remaining
forest ecosystems intact.
World Bank (WB) figures in 2004 show that 31 million poor Filipinos were found
in the rural areas21. Current government figures show this to be true even to date.
Within the agricultural sector, subsistence households or the poorest of the poor
include sugarcane farm workers, small farmers in coconut/ rice/ corn, fisherman
and forest dependent households. 80% of the fishing dependent families are said
to be living below the poverty threshold. Indigenous peoples comprise around 10-
12% of the population in 2002 are likewise seen to be included in the poorest
of the poor, and most disadvantaged because of the high incidence of illiteracy,
unemployment and poverty incidence, and live remote from basic services resulting
in high morbidity, mortality and malnutrition rates22.
These poor sectors’ survival is highly contingent on the continued presence and
access to the rich resources in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Studies show that
“ecosystem services and other non-marketed natural goods account for 47 to 89%
of the so-called GDP of the Poor.” (UNEP, DR. S Fotiou presentation “Green
Economy and the Way to Rio 2012, 7/27/11). Thus, forests with viable ecosystem
services directly contribute to enhancing well-being of the poor. They stand to be
more severely affected by the depletion of the natural resources resulting from over
utilization of the resources or the effects of climate change.
The forest cover map23 shows that the remaining significant forest cover lies in
Northern Luzon, the Eastern Seaboard of Luzon, Palawan, Samar, and provinces in
Mindanao. These cover the provinces found within the Cordillera Administrative
Region (CAR), Region 1 (Ilocos), Region 2 (Cagayan Valley), Region 4 (MIMAROPA
and Southern Tagalog), Region 8 (Western Vizayas) and Mindanao (Region 9, 10,
11, 12, CARAGA, ARMM). These are at the same time areas considered to have rich
watersheds which supply water to downstream agricultural farms planted to corn
and rice. It is notable that majority of the rural provinces in these regions are also
areas of high poverty incidence24. These are also areas where subsistence incidence
or incidence of food poverty is very high25. Subsistence incidence – is the incidence
where families earn less than the amount they need to eat the minimum prescribed
nutritional requirements, and is also referred to as food poor.
The resource and poverty maps overlay would show that the situation of CAR in
the North, and Mindanao in the South is indeed alarming. Both have a wealth

Alyansa Tigil Mina
9

Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

10


Source: DENR -- Mines and Geoscience Bureau

Alyansa Tigil Mina
11

of resources but bear the bane of having majority of the people living below the
poverty threshold. The combined figures of the Mindanao region (Region 9, 10, 11,
12, CARAGA, ARMM) show that majority of the Philippine population reside in
Mindanao. And yet government figures would show that almost all the provinces
within Mindanao are included in the 44 poorest provinces.

Around half of this poor population are rural poor women and indigenous women,
whose access to resources and income from the utilization of these resources remain
to be low. In 2010, government figures would show that only 32% of the holders of

TREES Forest Cover Map of Insular Southeast Asia, 2000

Source: TREES Publication Series, 2002

12


Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) are women. There are recent studies
which tend to show that indigenous women’s contribution to productive and care
work are often overlooked in resource management activities, despite the implication
such projects may have on increasing reproductive risk on women26. The study
cites the priority given to men participants in World Bank funded environmental
programs such as Village Forest Joint Management, Community Forestry Groups,
and Forest User Groups, and where women are allowed to participate in the marginal
economic activities27. The study characterizes women’s participation in local resource
management organizations to be “nominal and passive.”28
Poverty Incidence Among Families (%) 2009
Legend
Poverty Incidence (%)
Poverty Incidence
(%)
< 10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 53

Alyansa Tigil Mina
13

c.
Disaster
Risk
The Philippines lies within the Pacific Ring of Fire and is bound to its east by open
sea which serves as the breeding ground for typhoons29. From 2008 to 2010 the
Philippines has consistently been in the top three countries with the most number
of reported natural disasters made by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology
of Disasters (CRED). Majority of these disasters are flooding brought about by
extreme climatic changes.
Figure 1 – Top 10 countries by number of reported events in 2008


14



Its location in the Pacific Ring of Fire is also characterised by the presence of around
200 volcanoes, 22 of which are active and 20 classified as potentially active30. It is
likewise characterised by a high frequency of seismic activities from active faults
which line the archipelago and trenches which surround its islands.
The Mines and Geosciences Bureau is in the process of completing its geo-physical
hazard mapping of all provinces. These hazard maps identify the susceptibility of
certain zones to flooding and landslides. While the DENR recommends such areas
to be declared as no-go zones for habitation, these same areas ideally should likewise
be declared as no-go zones for the establishment of mining structures on exactly the
same basis. Construction of structures in such areas like tailings dams in f lood prone
or landslide prone areas increases the risk to down-stream communities.

Control and utilisation of land and natural resources has been the root of conflict
in the Philippines. From national liberation movements, to religious movements
and to inter-clan wars, these conflicts trace their roots to the question on who asserts
ownership and control over the resources. These high tension areas are also areas where
state governance is weak and human rights abuses have a tendency to worsen during
times of economic crises when the competition for control over resources heightens.
The entry of development projects covering de facto large scale mineral extraction
of resources under the imprimatur of state issued licenses or by mere economic
aggression of mining speculators, contributes to the tension in areas of high conflict
as the resources are further depleted. The fact that these are areas where governance
is weak, the tendency of expanding the number of armed security forces to protect

Alyansa Tigil Mina
15

mining installations also becomes high and the capacity of the state to carry out its
duty to protect citizens from undue harm is low.

The propensity for rights abuse is high in areas of conflict. The propensity for the
income from mining to find its way to fund the conflict is also high. The Kimberely
Process of Certification Scheme which is a certification process set up in 2003 to
prevent the trade of conflict diamonds or diamonds which are used to fund conflict
confirms the international concern raised over situations where natural resource
extraction is linked with conflict .31

IV.
Mapping
/
Inventory
of
current
discussions/

criteria
of
“No-Go-Zones”
(for
extractives)

a.
No
Go
Zones

No Go Zone – World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – WWF produced a discussion
paper in 2002 entitled “To Dig or Not to Dig?” in an effort to establish a criteria
to determine the “suitability or acceptability of mineral exploration, extraction and
transport” where they used ecological and social parameters 32. The decision tree is
guided by the decision matrix which is the figure below the next page.
The WWF standards identifies three types of responses depending on the level of
protection status (as provided by policy/ statute) of the subject area. A response of
no mineral activity is given to highly protected areas which fall under the following
protection statuses:

For areas outside these categories, but remain with significant protection status, mineral
activity is conditionally allowed subject to a guarantee that ecological and social values
shall be maintained even with the operation of mining. These categories are

Mining operations are allowed to “proceed with responsible management” for areas
which do not have protection status.

16


Meanwhile, environmentalists argue that mining should not be allowed in areas
with significant protection status inspite of guarantees that mining corporations can
offer, invoking the precautionary principle.
Further, one of the limitations of the IUCN Protected Areas vis a vis the Philippine NIPAS
Act is that the categorization of the protected areas of the two policies do no fully match.
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands33 is a treaty among 160 nations which
contains the commitment of the different state parties signatory to the convention to
ensure that the ecological character of the wetlands within their respective territories
are maintained, and used in a sustainable manner. Of the 1,949 listed wetlands of
International Importance, only 4 are from the Philippines. Considering the rich
water resources existing in the Philippines, these 4 listed in the Ramsar list may be
an underestimation of the areas which need protection.
Table 1: Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance in the Philippines

Number Date of
Country Name of Wetland
on the List listing
656

Apart from the Ramsar Convention and the UNESCO World Heritage Sites,
there are several multilateral environmental agreements that the United Nations
monitors covering biological diversity, chemical and waste management, and climate
change, atmosphere and desertification. The Philippines is signatory to all existing
conventions listed in the UN Information Portal on Multilateral Environmental
Agreements save for one which was entered into force only in 2008 – the Agreement
on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds or AEWA.
Most of these conventions on biological diversity create a positive obligation on the
party to the convention to create measures to conserve and sustainably use biological
resources, and to develop or maintain legislation that would protect threatened
species, populations and their habitat. It obliges the need to prevent particular
species to become endangered. These also promote the equitable benefit sharing
from the sustainable utilization of the components of biological diversity.
The conservation and preservation efforts also extend to world cultural and natural
heritage sites, which are natural features that usually “constitute the habitat of
threatened species and animals” under the World Heritage Convention. A positive
obligation on the part of the state parties to the convention is created to protect and

Alyansa Tigil Mina
17

conserve such sites not just for the use of the current population but creates the duty
to transmit such sites for future generations 34.
Table 2 : Signed Treaties / International Agreements on Conservation Efforts

United
Philippines Australia Canada China
States

World Resources Institute (WRI) – On the other hand, the WRI takes off from the
WWF paper and created a framework of analysis that may be used in reaching a decision.
It does not prescribe a course of action like the WWF paper. In fact it does not prescribe
a No-Go Zone. In a way it is more flexible and expands the discourse on social and
environmental impacts, and allows the decision to emanate from the consultations.

18


Categories Sub-‐Categories Indicators
Vulnerabilities
Biological, cultural,
and natural values

Biological, cultural,
and natural values

Human
communities decision-making

Natural Earthquakes
Hazards

Excess moisture

Other Building Codes
Contributing
Factors

Governance

Mine practices

(Note: WRI’s framework is not supposed to be a No Go guide. Its good as an
indicators framework, but should not in any way be construed as a No Go guide.)
No Go Zone – India In 2009, the environment ministry of the Government
of India classified India’s densely forested areas into Go and No-Go zones based
on environmental grounds35. No Go Zone was identified to be a densely forested
area where environmental clearances may not be allowed, and consequently mining

Alyansa Tigil Mina
19

cannot be allowed. This effectively disallowed coal mining in 203 blocks. Due to
immense pressure and demands of its growing economy, 70% of the No-Go zones
have been re-classified as open to mining this year (2011)36 .
No Go Zone – Ghana The Mineral and Mining Act of 2006 (Act 703) has been
criticized for not having a No-Go Zone. NGOs in Ghana are pushing for the review
of the Mining Act in order to define certain areas like forest reserves as “No Go
Zone” for mining, and the inclusion of Free Prior and Informed Consent 37.

b.
Fragile
Ecosystems/
Biodiversity
Internationally, the long-standing basis for declaration of a No-Go Zone is the
deleterious effect of human activity on fragile ecosystems. The obligations as
mentioned above have been created by international obligations under treaty
agreements.
The recognition of the primacy of preserving endangered species and fragile
ecosystems which serve as their habitat is recognised under both mandatory and
voluntary codes of conduct. The international obligations created by treaties are
supplemented by voluntary agreements such as the ICMM38 (International Council
on Mining and Metals) “no-go” pledge issued in August 2003 which encouraged its
members “not to explore or mine in World Heritage properties.”
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)39 on the other hand is a commitment by
corporations to voluntarily report on its operations and its economic, social and
environmental effects. It rests upon the assumption that development should be able
to meet the development needs of the current period without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Under the GRI reports, the
reporting entity is obliged to report its effects on the environment including the effect
of their operations on endangered species and the habitats of endangered species.
The Equator Principles40 is a voluntary standard imposed by commercial financial
institutions in risk assessing projects which are asked to be financed. It is based on the
IFC’s (International Finance Corporation) Performance Standards and World Bank
Group Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines. Financial institutions which
subscribe to equator principles are committed to not fund projects which cost USD
10 Million41 or more, across all industries, which are not compliant with social and
environmental policies and procedures. If a country prescribes a No Go Zone policy
as part of its law, then EP financial institutions will not fund companies violating
the NGZ. The IFC has an Exclusion List which identifies projects which IFC will not
finance, some because of the effects on the environment such as commercial logging
operations in primary tropical moist forest, or production of trade in wood or other
forest products other than sustainable managed forests.
The recognition of both treaty law and voluntary standards of the importance
of preserving environmentally critical areas, or exercising caution in the actions of

20


corporations, provide a strong argument for crafting and passing a No-Go Zone policy.
In order to comply with its international obligations for biodiversity protection, the
Philippines should create an enabling policy to carry out its international commitment.
The 1995 Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942) recognizes that included in the areas
closed to mining are initial components identified in the National Integrated
Protected Areas System Act of 199242 (RA 7586). However, this list is not exhaustive of
the existing critically biodiverse areas. Moreover, the international treaty obligations
require that the protected areas be described and delimited in order to effectively
manage the monitoring of efforts. This is also reiterated in Sec 19 of the Mining Act
of 1995, the protected areas should be defined by law as expressly prohibited under
the NIPAS act and other laws.

Sec 19. Areas Closed to Mining Applications
(c) In areas covered by valid and existing mining rights;;
(d) In areas expressly prohibited by law;;
(f) Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness
areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests, national parks, provincial/municipal

areas expressly prohibited under the National Integrated Protected areas System
(NIPAS) under Republic Act No. 7586, Department Administrative Order No.
25, series of 1992 and other laws;;

c.
Food
Security
The Right to Adequate Food is a human right43 afforded to all citizens irrespective
of race, creed or economic standing, and is derived from the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). There is a wide gap that
exists between the principles set out in the International Covenant to which the
Philippines is a signatory to (1966), and the reality. More than 840 Million44 people
worldwide are chronically hungry, especially in developing countries. As mentioned
in the earlier section, in the Philippines, more than 10 percent of the Philippine
population are considered food poor or those living on subsistence levels. Voluntary
guidelines have therefore been created in help implement this right. Although the
guidelines are voluntary, it draws from the interpretation of state obligations under
international law.
In interpreting the obligations created under this convention, it has been stated
under the Committee’s General Comment No. 3 (1990) that state parties to the
convention are legally obligated to take all expeditious measures to realize the
implementation of the Right to Adequate Food. It carries with it the obligations
to respect, protect and fulfil. States must respect this right and should not prevent
access to food. States also have the obligation to protect the right so that individuals
are not deprived access to the food and utilization of resources and the means to

Alyansa Tigil Mina
21

ensure a livelihood and food security. This includes the obligation on the state
to protect people’s resource base for food. Lastly, they have the duty to fulfil via
facilitation of access to food through other organizations or through state authored
distribution of resources.
In carrying out its duty to uphold the citizens Right to Adequate Food, areas which
are stricken by high magnitudes of hunger whose main sources of livelihood (food
and water) will be placed in a precarious situation by the operation of mining because
of the destruction of the food base and the contamination and over-drawing of the
water resource, such areas should be identified as No-Go Zones to Mining.

d.
Disaster
Risk
In situations prone to disaster because of high hazard rates and low capacities for
communities to cope with the negative effects of the hazard, a humanitarian situation
arises. The Philippines is obligated to view the situation from the perspective of
“Doing No Harm”. This principle of “Do No Harm” is likewise followed by the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Develpment (OECD) in dealing with
fragile states 45.
The Philippines passed the Disaster Risk Reduction Management Act of 201046 which
now obligates the different disaster risk reduction council to proactively identify
which areas in its geographic area of responsibility are prone to certain hazards, and
to ensure that the hazard mapping information is fed into the local development
process. The councils are mandated to “ensure the integration of disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation into the local development plans.
For areas which have already been assessed to be highly vulnerable to hazards that
threaten communities which will have difficulty coping, or will be a threat to life and
limb, the appropriate Sanggunians may create local legislations to feed into the Local
Development Plans and Local Physical Framework identifying such areas as No Go
Zones for Mining or other businesses. This is also true in the case of Small Island
Ecosystems were the carrying capacity of the island is not sufficient to undertake the
requirements of mining activity,

The State Duty to Protect the citizens carries with it the obligation to prevent,
investigate, punish and redress the occurrence of abuse in situations of weak
governance. As mentioned earlier, the Kimberley process surfaced the link between
natural resources and conflict and the strong move towards preventing such from
occurring again.
The basis for the Kimbereley Process is echoed and further expanded in the recently
passed Dodd Frank Wall-Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act47 (Sec 1502)
which now introduces the concept of “conflict minerals” as minerals originating
from the Democratic Republic of Congo or adjacent states which may be involved in

22


extreme levels of violence in the DRC, particularly sexual and gender-based violence,
and contributing to an emergency humanitarian situation. Through the Dodd-Frank
law, companies registered with the US Stock Market are now required to declare and
guarantee that the minerals they are selling do not contain minerals that directly or
indirectly financed or benefitted armed groups in the DRC.
There are also the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPSHR)48
which was borne out of discussions between the governments of the United States
and United Kingdom, companies in the energy and extractive sector, and non-
government organizations in order to surface the importance of promoting human
rights and protecting fundamental freedoms even in situations where business is
undertaken. It recognizes the primary duty of the state to maintain the rule of law,
and at the same time recognizes the right of business to provide itself with additional
security if risk assessments show this to be necessary. This sought to regulate the
actions of security forces hired by corporations to protect installations. The security
forces at times rival the size of armies.
The continuing emphasis on the need to respect human rights in business operations
especially in areas where there is armed conflict is reiterated in the Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights drafted by UN SGSR John Ruggie and now recently
adopted by the UN Security Council. The Guiding Principles operationalizes the UN
“Protect, Respect, Remedy” Framework. It emphasizes the duty of the State to protect
against human rights abuses by third parties including businesses. Businesses have a
corollary responsibility to respect human rights as part of its due diligence duty and
as expressed in their acts to address the adverse impacts of their operations. Lastly,
remedies, both judicial and non-judicial, should be made available and accessible
to victims of rights abuse of business operations. While the Guidelines provides for
operational guideposts in order to ensure there is proper redress when rights abuses
occur, what is clear is that internationally it is recognized that rights abuse are present
in business operations operating in countries where there is armed conflict.
The ICRC49 hastens to add, however, to these Guidelines. The guidelines only cover
the action of States and business and the duty to create mechanisms for both judicial
and non-judicial redress. However, in situations of armed conflict what should also
apply are principles of International Humanitarian Law and precepts under the
International Criminal Court. Third party entities actually engaged in the armed
conflict are duty bound to follow International Humanitarian Law, and business
operations are likewise bound to follow IHL. Business operations may be held liable
for violating International Humanitarian Law when its operations perpetuate or
support third party entities which are engaged in armed conflict.
In the Philippines, there are certain areas which, because of the intensity of the
conflict or the high propensity for violence to erupt, therefore a humanitarian
situation develops, should not be considered for mining operations.

Alyansa Tigil Mina
23

V.
Proposed
criteria
for
“No-Go-Zones”

Based on the foregoing explanations and identification of legal obligations, the
following general principles are put forward to generate the initial discussions
around a No Go Zone Policy.
a. Definition of Mining No-Go-Zones. These are areas which shall be classified
as closed to all forms of mining activities. These are areas which shall not be
eligible for application even for mineral exploration.
b. Determining No-Go Zones – Areas shall be declared as No Go Zones to mining
when any of the following situations are present:
i. Areas specifically designated by the 1995 Mining Act (RA 7942, Sec 19 (c),
(d), (f)) as areas closed to mining
In areas covered by valid and existing mining rights;
In areas expressly prohibited by law;
Old growth or virgin forests proclaimed watershed forest reserves,
wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests, national parks,
provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, game refuge and bird
sanctuaries as defined by law in areas expressly prohibited under the
National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) under Republic
Act No. 7586, Department Administrative Order No. 25 , series of
1992 and other laws
DENR MC 98-03 - Areas which the DENR Secretary may exclude based,
inter alia, on proper assessment of their environmental impacts and
implications on sustainable land uses, such as built-up areas and critical
watersheds with appropriate Barangay/Municipal/City/ Provincial
Sanggunian ordinance specifying therein the location and specific
boundary of the concerned area;
ii. In the absence of consent given by the entity concerned, under RA 7942,
Sec 19 (a), (b), (e) the following areas are closed to mining
In military and other government reservations, except upon prior
written clearance by the government agency concerned;
Near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archeological
and historic sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs,
dams or other infrastructure projects ,public or private works including
plantations or valuable crops, expect upon written consent of the
government agency or private entity concerned;
In areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law unless with
prior consent of the small-scale miners, in which case a royalty payment
upon the utilization of minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties,

24


said royalty forming a trust fund for the socioeconomic development of
the community concerned;
iii. If the area applied for falls under the areas considered as Non-Negotiable for
Conversion, or are Highly Restricted from Conversion (DAR AO 2002-01);
or if the extractive activities will affect the areas sought to be protected from
conversion by the mentioned executive issuance.
Non Negotiable for Conversion
Lands within protected areas designated under the NIPAS, including
mossy and virgin forests, riverbanks, and swamp forests or marshlands,
as determined by DENR;
All irrigated lands, delineated by the DA and/or the Administration
(NIA), where water is available to support rice and other crop production,
and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other
crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility
rehabilitation by the government;
All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm
funding commitments, as delineated by the DA and/or NIA; and
All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities

Highly Restricted from Conversion
Irrigable lands not covered by irrigation projects with firm funding
commitment;
Agro-industrial croplands, or lands presently planted to industrial crops
that support the economic viability of existing agricultural infrastructure
and agro-based enterprises;
Highlands or areas located in elevations of 500 meters or above and
which have the potential for growing semi-temperate or high-value
crops;
Lands issued with notice of land valuation and acquisition, or subject
of a perfected agreement between the landowner and the beneficiaries
under the Voluntary land Transfer (VLT)/Direct Payment Scheme
(DPS) under the CARP; and
Lands within and Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) or those involving
the establishment of an Environmentally Critical Project (ECP).
iv. Irreversibility of Destruction of Critical Biodiversity rich terrestrial and
marine ecosystems
Basis: Violation of International Commitments to Multilateral
Environmental Agreements – CBD, Ramsar, World Heritage Convention,
Cartagena Protocol, CITES, CMS, Plant Treaty

Alyansa Tigil Mina
25

Violation of National Law – on protected areas (NIPAS) Wildlife Act
Endemic endangered or endangered species of flora and fauna will be
affected by the mining operations in the area of application. Identify
the endemic and endangered species.
The area covered by the application is a de facto watershed of the
municipality, province. Identify population affected.
The area covered by the application currently performs ecological
services and subjecting it to extractive activities will compromise its
ability to deliver such ecological services. Identify what ecological
services will be affected, and population affected.
The area applied for is a protected area under an international/
multilateral environmental agreement signed by the Philippines.
Indicate international/ multilateral environmental agreement.
The characteristics of the area applied for falls within the components
of a protected area under an international / multilateral environmental
agreement signed by the Philippines. Indicate international/ multilateral
environmental agreement.
The area applied for is covered as a protected zone under the NIPAS Act.
The area applied for is a protected area under a specific public
proclamation. Indicate public proclamation or statute creating it as a
protected area.
The area applied for is one of the areas identified as an area closed to
mining under RA 7945 the Philippine Mining Act.
The area applied for is declared as a Protection Zone by the updated
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the Municipality, the Forest
Land Use Plan of the Province, or the Physical Framework Plan of the
Municipality/ Province.
v. Severely Compromise Food Security of Subsistence Economies and
Communities with Low Human Development Indices
Basis: Violation of Right to Food under UN ICESCR
Compromises Philippines commitments to reach MDG goals
The area applied for covers the de facto watershed area of the
municipality or province.
The municipality or province have subsistence incidence/ food poor
incidence of more than 30%, where displacement of such communities
from their current settlements may limit accessibility of food sources
and endanger survival of citizens.
The settlements in and around the area applied for are largely dependent
on agriculture, forest and non-forest products, and where opening the

26


area exclusively for extraction will severely limit the access of such
communities to food resources.
The operation of the mines will compromise the availability of water
for the communities as source of drinking water or for agricultural
purposes.
Closing the area applied for the exclusive use of the extractive operations
will severely limit the source of basic food and water of the food poor /
subsistence economy communities.
The actual ecological services being performed by the forest resources
within and around the area applied for will be negatively affected by the
mining operations.
The area applied for has a potential to generate comparable if not more
income and access to food resource that would address food insecurity
in the area, and the extractive activities will negate any potential for
implementing PES (payment for ecological services) mechanisms for
those using the available natural resource.
vi. Severely Compromise the Health and Safety of the Population by increasing
the vulnerability to disaster
Basis: Humanitarian Principles of Doing No Harm, UN ISDR, DRRM Act
of 2010
No comprehensive hazard and risk mapping of the municipality/
province has been done by the DENR, PHILVOCS and PAGASA. The
fault lines, flood vulnerable and hazard prone areas, seismic and active
tectonic areas, have not been determined nor mapped out.
If a hazard and risk mapping has been done, the area applied for has
historically been known as a hazard / disaster risk prone area and the
conduct of extractive activities will exacerbate the geological / disaster
risks to the communities within and adjacent to the area applied for.
The mine site including all its components are located in a hazard-prone
area, and the the construction and placement of the mine’s component
structures will put human settlements at higher risk.
Engineering solutions or structural design in the construction of tailings
dams and other mine structures will not be sufficient to guarantee a
reduction of risks to human settlements given the hazards present in
the area applied for.
vii. Reasonable belief that the extraction of Minerals in the zone will benefit or
Further Propel Conflict
Basis: State Duty to Protect, UN Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law ICRC

Alyansa Tigil Mina
27

The area applied for are classified by Foreign Embassies as high conflict
zones and no-go zones for foreign nationals.
In the past 5 years, there has been a record of armed conflict in the area
and there is reasonable belief that activities of the parties to the conflict
will continue. Identify parties to the conflict.
The armed conflict incidents prevented the free movement of people
and goods in the area. It has also increased the risk to life and property.
The armed conflict in the area is related to the operations of the mines.
For areas with armed groups, the armed groups are known to collect
money from business as a form of “tax”, and there is reason to believe
that the mining company also gives money to the armed groups.
c. Process of Determining No-Go-Zones
i. The above checklist may be used to arrive at a finding that the area should
be declared as a No-Go-Zone based on
Irreversibility of Destruction of Critical Biodiversity rich terrestrial and
marine ecosystems
Severely Compromise Food Security of Subsistence Economies and
Severely Compromise the Health and Safety of the Population by
increasing the vulnerability to disaster
Reasonable belief that the extraction of Minerals in the zone will benefit
or Further Propel Conflict
ii. The metes and bounds of the areas to be declared as No-Go Zone are
determined. This enables proper monitoring of compliance with protection
more realistic, and actual encroachment shall be prevented.
iii. Affected communities are communities that are located within the
application area, the communities adjacent to the application area whose
resources will be affected by the extractive operations, and downstream
communities whose resources may be affected by the mining operations.
iv. Affected communities may initiate a move to declare their area to be a NGZ
on the following basis
Implementation of the Protection Status of the area
Application for the declaration of the area as a Protected Area
Lobbying for the passage of a Municipal Code/ Provincial Code/
Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan / Provincial Physical
Framework Plan that would recognize this area as a Protection area and
identify certain areas a high risk zones

28


Lobbying for the identification of areas stricken by hunger to be
closed to further displacement and to prioritise food provisions/ food
production by the NAPC (National Anti-Poverty Commission)
Lobbying to declare certain areas as Disaster High Risk zones by the
appropriate Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council together
with relevant government agencies (DENR, PHIVOLCS, PAG ASA)
after hazard and risk mapping
Lobbying the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
(OPAPP), NAPC and the Department of National Defense, to declare
certain areas to be No Go Zones when there is reasonable certainty to
believe that extractive activities will exacerbate the conflict in these areas.
Seeking the assistance and Lobbying international agencies
implementing International Humanitarian Law (UNHCR, ICRC,
Red Crescent) to declare certain areas to be conflict zones and thus
humanitarian operations need to ensue
v. The area of covered by No-Go zone may be determined by the local
sanggunian or sanggunians affected by mining, upon request of citizens
residing in the area, or by citizens whose life, liberty or property would be
affected by the mining operations.
vi. If the area to be declared a No-Go zone is within an ancestral domain, then
the customary law of the tribe or tribes covering the ancestral domain shall
be used in determining the metes and bounds of the No Go Zone.

VI.
Procedures
and
Tools
for
pilot-testing
the
“No-Go-Zones”
policy

a. Expansion of Protected Areas by Inclusion in the list
i. Work for the inclusion of the 228 Key Biodiversity Sites to be part of the
RAMSAR list (if applicable) and IUCN Red List
ii. Work for the area to be designated as a critical habitat under the Wildlife Act
iii. Work for the enforcement of EO23 preventing logging in all natural forests
b. Expansion of No Go Zone by passage of Local Ordinance amending the Land
Use Maps and Forest Land Use Plans
i. Work for the passage of Local legislation which identifies these areas in the
local land use map as No-Go zones
ii. Preparation of Forest Land Use Maps that will designate the different
zones and management prescription would be a better strategy for holistic
approach. An ordinance can then be passed on the FLUP.
c. Identification of critical food security areas in coordination with the National

Alyansa Tigil Mina
29

Anti Poverty Commission, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
and the Department of Agriculture
d. Identification of high conflict areas in cooperation with the Department of
National Defense, Commission on Human Rights, International Committee of
the Red Cross, Red Crescent, UN
e. Process of Determining No-Go-Zones –
i. The above questions may be used to arrive at a finding that the area should
be declared as a No-Go-Zone based on
Specific prohibition under existing laws
Irreversibility of Destruction of Critical Biodiversity rich terrestrial and
marine ecosystems
Severely Compromise Food Security of Subsistence Economies and
Severely Compromise the Health and Safety of the Population by
increasing the vulnerability to disaster
Reasonable belief that the extraction of Minerals in the zone will benefit
or Further Propel Conflict
ii. The metes and bounds of the areas which to be declared as No-Go monitoring
of its protection is made and that encroachment shall be prevented. Zones
to mining shall be determined in order to ensure that proper
iii. Affected communities are communities located at the direct impact site,
the adjacent communities whose resources will be affected by the mining
operations, and downstream communities whose resources may also be
affected by the mining operations.
iv. Affected communities may initiate a move to declare their area to be a NGZ
on the following basis
Implementation of the Protection Status of the area
Application for the declaration of the area as a Protected Area
Lobbying for the passage of a Municipal Code/ Provincial Code/
Municipal Land Use Plan / Provincial Land Use Plan that would
recognize this area as a Protection area and identify certain areas a high
risk zones
Lobbying for the identification of areas stricken by hunger to be
closed to further displacement and to prioritise food provisions/ food
production by the NAPC (National Anti-Poverty Commission)
Lobbying to declare certain areas as Disaster High Risk zones by the
appropriate Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council together
with relevant government agencies (DENR, PHIVOLCS, PAG ASA)

30


after hazard and risk mapping
Lobbying the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
(OPAPP), NAPC and the Department of National Defense, to declare
certain areas to be conflict zones
Seeking the assistance and Lobbying international agencies
implementing International Humanitarian Law (UNHCR, ICRC,
Red Crescent) to declare certain areas to be conflict zones and thus
humanitarian operations need to ensue
v. The area of No-Go zone may be determined by the local sanggunian or
sanggunians covering the area to be declared as a No Go zone, upon request
of citizens residing in the area, or by citizens whose life, liberty or property
would be affected by the mining operations.
vi. If the area to be declared a No-Go zone is within an ancestral domain, then
the customary law of the tribe or tribes covering the ancestral domain shall
be used in determining the metes and bounds of the No Go Zone.

VII.

Procedures
and
Tools
for
pilot-testing
the
“No-Go-Zones”
policy

a. Expansion of Protected Areas by Inclusion in the list-
i. Work on the designation of an area as critical habitat through the Wildlife
act; there are national policies that currently protect KBAs, the current
EO23 prevents logging in all natural forests; they should support policies
that protect KBAs from extractive acts.
ii. Work for the inclusion of the 228 Key Biodiversity Sites to be part of the
RAMSAR list (if applicable) and IUCN Red List
b. Expansion of No Go Zone by passage of Local Ordinance amending the Land
Use Map
i. Work for the passage of Local legislation which identifies these areas in the
local land use map as No-Go zones
ii. Or preparation of forest landuse maps that will designate the different
zones and management prescription would be a better strategy for holistic
approach. An ordinance can then be passed on the FLUP.
c. Identification of critical food security areas in coordination with the National
Anti Poverty Commission, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
and the Department of Agriculture
d. Identification of high conflict areas in cooperation with the Department of
National Defense, Commission on Human Rights, International Committee of
the Red Cross, Red Crescent, UN

Alyansa Tigil Mina
31

Endnotes

32


Forest cover in Tampakan, South Cotabato

Alyansa Tigil Mina
Alyansa
Tigil
Mina
National
Secretariat

Tel.:
+63
(02)
434.46.42
loc
27

Fax:
+63
(02)
434.46.96

Emails
:
nc@alyansatigilmina.net

policy@alyansatigilmina.net

sos@alyansatigilmina.net
communications@alyansatigilmina.net

Twitter: Website: Facebook:
atm_philippines www.alyansatigilmina.net Alyansa Tigil Mina

Atm No Go Zones Policy Paper

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (7)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à Atm No Go Zones Policy Paper

Similaire à Atm No Go Zones Policy Paper (20)

Plus de Farah Sevilla

Plus de Farah Sevilla (6)

Atm No Go Zones Policy Paper